The Bush administration has long had a tough outlook on wayward, anti-democratic, dangerous nations. President Bush has identified Iran and North Korea as members of an axis of evil; Washington has also labeled Syria a rogue nation. The American government has been staunch in its refusal to entertain such nations with direct diplomatic talks and instead has marginalized the nations and tried to swing global opinion against them.

Recent rumblings in Washington, however, mark a departure from this track record. The Bush administration now appears willing to take a seat at the negotiating table with Iran, Syria and North Korea.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced last week that the United States had agreed to join high-level talks that will include Iran and Syria on the future of Iraq. The first meeting, to be held March 10, was initiated by the Iraqi government and will include the U.S. and Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria. A follow-up meeting, which will include high-level ministers from Tehran, Damascus and Washington, is due to take place in April, possibly in Turkey.

A similar diplomatic warming is occurring between America and its arch-enemy North Korea. Earlier this week, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill met with North Korean Vice Minister Kim Kye Gwan in New York to discuss steps toward normalizing relations between the two nations. Such steps, according to Hill, could include removing North Korea from America’s list of state sponsors of terrorism and opening the way for Pyongyang to have a normal trading relationship with America.

What results can we expect from these diplomatic overtures with these nations?

Diplomacy is a powerful element of national power. Respected international relations expert Hans Morgenthau wrote, “Of all the factors that make for the power of a nation, the most important, however unstable, is the quality of diplomacy” (Politics Among Nations; emphasis ours throughout). High-quality diplomacy is one of the strongest weapons a nation can possess. Weak diplomacy, on the other hand, can thrust a nation into crisis.

What will be the quality of America’s diplomacy with Iran, Syria and North Korea?

Morgenthau explained diplomacy as the “art of bringing the different elements of the national power to bear with maximum effect upon those points in the international situation which concern the national interest most directly.” Effective diplomacy occurs when a government uses the elements of national power at its disposal—its political connections and influence, geographic situation, economic and industrial capacity, military might—to promote its national interests. Intelligent diplomacy, wrote Morgethau, harnesses these qualities and pursues its objective by three means: persuasion, compromise, and threat of force.

Effective diplomacy employs the power of persuasion, compromises at the right time and on the right issues, and—when necessary—uses the threat of military force. It requires the careful, well-timed blending of all three of these components.

“Rarely, if ever,” Morgenthau wrote, “in the conduct of the foreign policy of a great power is there justification for using only one method to the exclusion of the others.” The art of diplomacy consists of placing the right emphasis on each of the three means at its disposal at the right time. “A diplomacy that puts most of its eggs in the basket of compromise when the military might of the nation should be predominantly displayed,” for example, “or stresses military might when the political situation calls for persuasion and compromise, will … fail.”

Effective diplomacy requires that rhetoric be underpinned by military strength. The fact is, history shows that unless a credible military option exists, persuasion and compromise have little effect in dealing with hostile regimes.

This raises the question: Is America prepared to underpin its rhetoric, its persuasion and compromise, with the threat of military action? If it’s not, then we can predict that its diplomatic relations with Iran, Syria and North Korea will crumble, and that violence and conflict will eventually prevail.

Unfortunately, it appears that this is essentially the situation as it stands. Antiwar Democrats and mainstream media are playing a powerful part in undermining any threat of military force. Other nations know America’s government is isolated and would become even more so if it resorted to force against Iran, North Korea or Syria, making the use of force extremely unlikely, hence rendering U.S. diplomacy ineffective. How many of those who espouse diplomatic relations with rogue nations comprehend this fact?

Theodore Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to see that America had the potential to be a world power. He knew that effective diplomacy was key to realizing this potential—and that threat of action was an indispensible component of that. Speaking at the Naval War College in Newport on June 2, 1897, Roosevelt said, “Diplomacy is utterly useless when there is no force behind it. The diplomat is the servant, not the master, of the soldier. There are higher things in this life than the soft and easy enjoyment of material comfort. It is through strife, or the readiness for strife, that a nation must win greatness.“ He made that comment at the dawn of American greatness. The truth of his statement has never been more evident than in our danger-fraught world: Today, survival is won “through strife, or the readiness for strife.”

Solving crisis through peaceful means is always preferable. However, Iran, Syria and North Korea have a track record of exploiting concessions, rejecting agreements and trampling on other nations’ willingness to compromise. Though America may come away from these talks with agreements in hand, what will it do if and when North Korea refuses to meet its agreements? How far is it prepared to go to ensure Iran or Syria meet their side of any bargain that is agreed upon? If these countries are confident that the U.S. is not prepared to back up its compromise and persuasion with meaningful military action, how effective will the diplomacy be?

Entering into a diplomatic relationship with these nations will be a litmus test of the character and quality of the U.S. government. Strong, effective diplomacy may further America’s national interests and secure a measure of peace. But if U.S. diplomacy is weak, and not underpinned by any credible threat of force, it will only serve to further the interests of these rogue states and further ruin America’s power and reputation. And considering the loud calls from the newly Democrat-controlled Congress for eliminating all military options, it is not difficult to predict which direction these diplomatic efforts will likely take.

As the American government increasingly enters diplomatic talks with the likes of Iran and North Korea, it would also do well to consider how other nations and groups perceive its newfound penchant for diplomacy with its enemies. What message is the U.S. sending to terrorist groups and other nations by embracing hostile nations in diplomatic talks? Notice this Opinion piece from Novosti, a Russian news agency:

This about-face of American diplomacy is all the more astounding since it took place in a matter of a month and a half. In middle January Condoleezza Rice reassured the Senate that the United States would not go for any bilateral diplomatic contacts with North Korea, Iran or Syria until they became reasonably flexible on disputable issues. The U.S. Secretary of State described the policies of these countries as “extortion” rather than diplomacy.This “extortion” is still in place, and it is Washington that has become flexible. … Nobody could match Rice in the UN Security Council in her demands for tough sanctions against North Korea after its nuclear test in October. In case of Iran and Syria, she also preceded the invitation to the conference in Baghdad with a package of confrontation-provoking speeches, and accused Tehran of collaboration with the Shiite militants in attacking U.S. troops. To sum up, each time dessert followed the bitter pill.

The Russians already perceive America’s willingness to enter diplomatic talks with Iran, Syria and North Korea as a sign of weakness. Each of these nations despises America, yet “it is Washington that has become flexible.”

History has proven that states like Iran, Syria and North Korea cannot be talked into giving up their destructive agendas. But the general policy in international bodies—and in American politics, with a couple of brief exceptions—is still to forego action for the sake of talk, indefinitely. In October 2006, Dr. George Friedman of Stratfor Systems, in discussing American diplomacy, stated: “Diplomacy without a realistic threat of significant action, in the event that diplomacy fails, is just empty chatter.” That statement summarizes American foreign policy today. When it comes to problems such as Iran’s involvement in Iraq, the policy is little more than empty chatter.

The trouble is, as time will show, empty chatter goes a long way toward emboldening the most dangerous of America’s enemies. In this case, we expect it to empower Iran, Syria and North Korea, as well as other anti-American nations and organizations, and to further tarnish America’s reputation as a global superpower worthy of admiration and respect.